[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFw_KWncsY0x=_BnEKkZz3dFUm921ppu0HbGk8e2sBwiAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:49:37 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/alternatives: Fix optimize_nops() checking
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> Use gdb on /proc/kcore and disassemble self to see the _real_ code.
Yes, because that works so well when you get these random reports of
crazy behavior that simply doesn't ever trigger on any machine you
have.
> But yes, tricky stuff. Not arguing we need relocations in alternatives,
> just saying debugging them (and static keys and others) is great fun.
Yes. It's definitely a good challenge, and can be _very_ satisfying
when you then finally figure it out.
I'm not sure it's worth the pain before that point, though.
So I think we should strive to make our alternatives code just catch
some of the more subtle errors early instead.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists